Ghosts of Darkness (2017)

In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

The paranormal investigators Jack Donavan (Michael Koltes) and Jonathan Blazer (Paul Flannery) receive a mysterious invitation card to go to the notorious Richmond Manor, where several murders have happened along 200 years. A mysterious butler tells that his boss has invited them to stay for three nights at the mansion to get rid of the label of haunted house. In return, they would receive fifty thousand dollars each. Jack is a skeptical man that uses technology to find frauds while Jonathan is a medium. What will they find in the Richmond Manor?"Ghosts of Darkness" is a flawed low budget haunted house film with many clichés. However with improvements in the storyline and screenplay; a better budget; and replacement of the unconvincing Michael Koltes, this film could work. The result is not good but is not awful at all since Paul Flannery gives some touch of humor to the story. My vote is four.Title (Brazil): Not Available

On a lazy Saturday night, I came across a film that piqued my interest, "Ghosts of Darkness".The premise starts off simple enough, a ghost hunter and a medium are invited to a house to prove that it isn't haunted. Each are offered $50,000.00 USD to spend three days within the house and at the end declare the house is safe from any sort of paranormal activity.The two investigators are at odds almost immediately upon meeting one another. One a staunch skeptic, the other a whimsy medium. As they spend the days (and nights) in the house, it becomes very clear everything isn't as it once appeared to be. You can tell this is a budget b-horror film from the get go, but that isn't always a bad thing. The cinematography is of average quality, the special effects aren't terrible and the two actors are actually really good.This film has a lot of comedy in it and when I first started watching it, it almost had a "Beetlejuice" vibe to it.Further (and this is my favorite part), the writers took time to explain almost every aspect of the film, from character's back stories, to the house's history, why it was haunted and wrapped it all up in a decent little package.I'll be blunt, this will NOT be the best horror/comedy you'll ever see. But it won't be the worst either. It's worth giving it a go if you need to get your horror fix on.

Two investigators, one a psychic and one a sceptic, are tasked to stay in an allegedly haunted house to prove that nothing is there so the house can be sold, or developed, or something. The two agree and before long strange things start to happen. The house has a history of violence and eventually the reason for this is discovered. The film works very well for the first two thirds but the last third descends a bit into silliness which is a shame.The location is atmospheric (Ardgour House in Scotland),the photography competent and the earlier scenes are well directed until the movie comes apart. Michael Koltes was not convincing in his role but Paul Flannery was excellent. He brought well balanced humour, feeling and intelligence to the role as the psychic.

It still amazes me how people involved in a film can manage to mangle it so bad that it comes off as a joke. Such is the case for "Ghosts of Darkness." I rarely go on about a movie this bad, but I'm going to make an exception here because this movie had potential--the house and its back story. However, given what was put on the screen, you'd never know it.Two paranormal researchers are contacted by a mysterious man who offers them each $50,000 if they can stay in a house with a gruesome history. Jonathan is a medium; Jack is the "I'm-not-going-to- believe-anything-unless-it-bites-me-in-the-ass" dude. If that isn't bad enough, he also has the personality of a fence post. Mystery man takes their cell phones and car keys and tells them they will be locked in for the next 36 hours. They are each given $25,000 up front and told they'll get the remaining $25,000 upon completion of their "project." This is where the film went off track completely, and if you're smart, you'll realize what I'm talking about. For a movie to rely on two people, those people should have some kind of chemistry. That is nowhere to be found. Jonathan acts as though the entire project is a joke. Jack acts as if he's just been hit in the head with a brick. The director couldn't make up his mind if he wanted a comedy or a horror movie and although you can have elements of both in a movie, you need to know how to blend those elements. It also would help if your characters could ACT. It was pretty evident to me the guy cast to play the "tortured soul", a/k/a Jack, couldn't act his way out of a paper bag. The character of Jonathan looked eerily like Gary Oldman's character of Sirius Black (from the Harry Potter movies). Another suggestion is to STOP with this crap of CGI demons. They are not scary and give me an impression you're too lazy to hire real makeup artists. Rated "R" for violence, disturbing images, and language.